Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 178 posts

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#101

Post by detrites »

swader999 wrote: post #92
jliptzin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain to me what is so dangerous here? Do people actually think we’re headed towards James Cameron’s terminator and soon ChatGPT will become self aware and destroy us? I am far more afraid of tools to edit viruses becoming cheap and widely available, then one nutjob in his garage can engineer and release smallpox v2.0 and wipe out 90% of the worldwide population before we even know what hit us. Or you k…

What's dangerous is that it will amplify both the good and bad in society.

Is there anything that doesn't do that?

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#102

Post by startupsfail »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #93
startupsfail wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, human intelligence is likely also based on a similar advanced chat bot setup. While GPT-4 only performs as good as top-10th percentile of human students taking an exam (a professional in the field can do much more than this), it is notable that as a generalist GPT-4 would outperform such professionals. And GPT-4 is much faster than a human. And we have not yet evaluated GPT-4 working in its optimal se…

> The problem is, human intelligence is likely also based on a similar advanced chat bot setup. This is so wildly wrong and yet confidently said in every techbro post about LLMs. I beg of you to talk to an expert.

Like what expert? And who are you exactly to state that this is wrong, that boldly? Are you an expert? How many neuroscience and psychology papers have you read? Do you have any children? Have you trained any LLMs? Have you worked with reinforcement learning? Or how many computer science papers have you read during last two decades?

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#104

Post by rapjr9 »

whiplash451 wrote: post #39
smodad wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree. Not releasing it to the public makes it more dangerous. One major downside of all development being done in private is that the AI can very easily be co-opted by our self-appointed betters and you end up with a different kind of dystopia where every utterance, thought and act is recorded and monitored by an AI to make sure no one "steps out of line." I think the solution is releasing it to the gen…

The discussion needs to go beyond the model. We need to talk about the training set for GPT and the process around RLHF.

Yes, the training data comes from people, and people are corrupt, illogical, random, emotional, unmotivated, take shortcuts, cheat, lie, steal, invent new things, and lead boring lives as well as not so boring lives. Expect the same behaviors to be emulated by a LLM. Garbage in = garbage out is still true with AI.

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#105

Post by amrb »

jadbox wrote: post #3

This seems... dangerously careless. What if it uses the internet to seek out zero day vulnerabilities and exploit them routinely? Sure humans also do this, but we're talking about a new level of 0day exploit carried out at scale. Sure, maybe it won't, but do you trust a hallucinating, left-brained, internet-trained intelligence to be strictly logical and mindful for all it's actions that is taking self autonomously (…

Given ChatGpt lowers the entry to programming, I'd be worried about teenagers writing malware sooner than AI supremacy.

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#106

Post by amrb »

UncleEntity wrote: post #99
amrb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there's this little problem, say we can track X number of malware with the current security defenders. But ChatGPT lowers the barrier to programmer to a point which the average teenage could do malware, we now get a wave of hacks going on.. like whats the response there?

Have the AI working to plug the holes before the script kiddies can exploit them? Such an obvious solution that any silly monkey can think it up.

And who trains it to find the problems? now your building scanning tools and if you've lucky you can get it to print out a commit to fix it if you have access to the code..

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#107

Post by ALittleLight »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #96
pixl97 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a computer program?

Never fails that when a techbro has been told LLMs aren't what they think they fall back to a field they certainly have more authority on: The human brain/intelligence.

The issue here is that the "LLMs have intelligence" side of the argument can lay out a simple mainstream conception of intelligence (general problem solving) and explain directly how LLMs meet this definition. The other side of the argument, at least here in this thread, seems to be an empty insult or two and... Nothing else?

Again, just say what you think intelligence is and why you think LLMs don't have it. If you can't do that then you have no business expressing an opinion on the subject. You really aren't expressing an opinion at all.

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#108

Post by spyder »

jliptzin wrote: post #49
sorokod wrote: post #12

AI needn't even try to escape, the clueless humans will plug it into reallity by themselves. Given this totally expected attitude I hope that the base models will never be released to the general population.

Can someone explain to me what is so dangerous here? Do people actually think we’re headed towards James Cameron’s terminator and soon ChatGPT will become self aware and destroy us? I am far more afraid of tools to edit viruses becoming cheap and widely available, then one nutjob in his garage can engineer and release smallpox v2.0 and wipe out 90% of the worldwide population before we even know what hit us. Or you k…

Because that virus editing nutjob could be the AI. It's true that without the physical "body" it's harder to do it but it could already delegate a lot of things to humans through computers, through ordering components and hiring people to do physical things without the individual workers or even the initial "prompter" realizing the end product would be dangerous. Or the prompter can have malicious intent, but the hired people and the world still would not know about the final dangerous product until it's too late.

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#109

Post by startupsfail »

josephg wrote: post #98
jliptzin wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But where is the imminent danger? It is still limited in many ways. For example, it can be turned off or unplugged. Is it because CAPTCHAs won’t work anymore? That sounds like a problem for sites like Twitter that have bot problems. Is it because it may replace people’s jobs? That comes with every technological step forward and there’s always alarmist ludditism to accompany it. Is it because bad people will use it to…

There are two big concerns: 1. GPT-8 or something is able to do 70% of people’s jobs. It can write software, drive cars, design industrial processes, build robots and manufacture anything we can imagine. This is a great thing in the long term, but in the short term society is designed where you need to work in order to have food to eat. I expect a period of rioting, poverty, and general instability. All we need for t…

I actually don’t think that ASI, if/when created by humans, will be very dangerous for humans. Humanity so far is stuck in an unfashionable location, on a tiny planet, on the outskirts of the median sized galaxy. There is very little reason for ASI, if created, to go after using up the atoms of a tiny planet (or a tiny star) on which it had originated. I’d fully expect it to go with the Carl Sagan and try to preserve that bright blue dot, rather than try to build a galactic superhighway through the place.

It’s the intermediate steps that I’m more worried about. Like Ilya or Sam making a few mistakes, because of lack of sleep or some silly peer pressure.

Re: Auto-GPT: An Autonomous GPT-4 Experiment

#110

Post by krainboltgreene »

startupsfail wrote: post #102
krainboltgreene wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is, human intelligence is likely also based on a similar advanced chat bot setup. This is so wildly wrong and yet confidently said in every techbro post about LLMs. I beg of you to talk to an expert.

Like what expert? And who are you exactly to state that this is wrong, that boldly? Are you an expert? How many neuroscience and psychology papers have you read? Do you have any children? Have you trained any LLMs? Have you worked with reinforcement learning? Or how many computer science papers have you read during last two decades?

Lets assume for a moment that I haven't read any papers in those fields, that I don't have any childrens, that I haven't trained any LLMs or worked in "reinforcement learning", or even read any computer science papers in the last 20 years (the answer to 90% of that is yes): I don't have to be an expert in physics to know that pastors can't levitate, regardless of what they claim.

You're mad that I'm calling you out, I get it, but you gotta understand after the 200th time of seeing this unfounded sentiment bandied about I'm not phased.

Post reply on HN